Chesapeake Climate Action Network

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been sued over toxic chemicals released into the air, water and land by the oil and gas industry, a coalition of nine environmental and open government groups announced today.

The extraction of oil and gas releases more toxic pollution than any other industry except for power plants, according to the EPA's own estimates, the coalition, which filed the lawsuit this morning in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, noted.

But the industry has thus far escaped federal rules that, for over the past two decades, have required other major polluters to disclose the type and amount of toxic chemicals they release or dispose. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) is a federal pollution database, established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and can be used by first-responders in the event of a crisis as well as members of the general public.

“People deserve to know what toxic chemicals are being used near their homes, schools and hospitals,” said Matthew McFeeley, staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“For too long, the oil and gas industry has been exempt from rules that require other industries to disclose the chemicals they are using, so communities and workers can better understand the risks. It’s high time for EPA to stop giving the oil and gas industry special treatment.”

Roughly one in four Americans live within a mile of an oil or gas well, making the air emissions from the industry a matter of local concern to a fast-growing number of families.

Salmon ruled that an ordinance exempting the Lusby, Md.-based LNG project from local zoning laws — Ordinance 46-13 — violated both a section of a state Land Use law, as well as Maryland's constitution. The facility will be fueled by gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).

In the ruling, Judge Salmon described the zoning exemption as “a very unusual situation.” In 2013, the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners and the Calvert County Planning Commission carved out both LNG export and import facilities from zoning laws.

“To my knowledge no other municipality or county in Maryland has attempted to do what the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners has attempted to do, i.e. completely exempt two uses from being covered by zoning regulations while requiring everyone else in the County to abide by those regulations,” wrote Salmon.

“At a minimum, this ruling will likely cause real delay in the ability of Dominion to begin major construction of this controversial $3.8 billion fossil fuel project,” Mike Tidwell, executive director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), said in a press release. “The ruling should certainly give pause to the Wall Street investors that Dominion is seeking to recruit to finance this expensive, risky project.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, AMP Creeks Council (shorthand for Accokeek Mattawoman Piscataway Creeks Council), came to a similar conclusion.

“This is a remarkable victory for the people of Lusby, Maryland, and folks fighting fracking and LNG exports throughout the Mid-Atlantic region,” Kelly Canavan, President of AMP Creeks Council, said in a press release.

Yet, Salmon concluded the ruling out by stating his decision “has no direct bearing on whether the facility will be built or not.” And even AMP Creeks acknowledged in its press release that its legal team “is still sorting out the implications of this ruling.”

Further, Canavan told DeSmogBlog in an interview that she agrees with Salmon, at least in terms of the legal argument he put forward about his role in the final destiny of the Cove Point LNG export facility.

“Even if he wanted to, he does not have the power to determine whether or not the facility will be built,” she said. “It doesn’t mean there won’t be a ripple effect.”

Gas export terminals might be the new oil pipelines. Taking a leaf out of Keystone XL protestors’ playbooks, organizers have scheduled a Washington, D.C. rally to “Stop Fracked Gas Exports” on Sunday, July 13. Based on RSVP numbers, thousands are expected to attend.

The rally comes as the fight against liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports heats up around the U.S.

According to Ted Glick, national campaign coordinator of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), “There are 14 proposals before [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)] to build gas export terminals around the U.S. coastlines.”

Cove Point, which CCAN has been organizing against for over a year, “really could be approved at any point from a month from now on,” he said.

Glick’s comments came during a Climate Reality Check Coalition conference call about the July 13 rally. Also on the call were Sandra Steingraber, a biologist, author, and member of New Yorkers Against Fracking: Tyson Slocum, Director of the Public Citizen Energy Program: Keith Schue, an engineer from New York, and Linda Morin, a member of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community.

Though all of the speakers addressed the greenhouse gas emission problems with natural gas extraction and LNG exports, they mostly focused on policy, law, and immediate health and safety concerns associated with LNG transport.

The assessment, titled, “Shale Gas Risk Assessment for Maryland,” was conducted by Ricardo-AEA, the same United Kingdom-based independent environmental consulting firm that led the European Commission’s hydraulic fracturing risk assessment and regulatory review.

To develop an evaluation of the potential impacts of fracking in Maryland, the firm reviewed evidence of environmental and health issues associated with hydraulic fracturing, the gas industry’s standard operating practices and Maryland’s current regulatory framework. In the process, Ricardo-AEA conducted a literature review of more than 200 documents and evaluated Maryland-specific geological data. The study did not address climate or carbon footprint issues.

The assessment found a cumulative risk grade of “high” or “very high” in nine of ten qualities if fracking were to occur in Maryland. The qualities included a high risk of surface water contamination, ground water contamination, noise impacts, visual impacts, increased traffic and threats to biodiversity.

Additionally, the study notes fracking is estimated to use 3.88 million gallons of water per well, threatening Maryland water supplies from two sides. Fracking would also produce dangerous air emissions such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and sulfur dioxide.

The study also predicts a “very high risk” of undeveloped land being taken over for development, with up to 10 percent more land needed for full development of a gas reservoir than is currently described as developed in Maryland's Allegheny and Garrett counties.

The proposal would send gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) from the Marcellus Shale basin to the global market. The export terminal is opposed by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Maryland Sierra Club and a number of other local environment and community groups.

Cornell University’s Law School explains a non-disclosure agreement is a “legally binding contract in which a person or business promises to treat specific information as a trade secret and not disclose it to others without proper authorization.”

Upon learning about the agreement, Fred Tutman, CEO of Patuxent Riverkeeper — a group opposed to the LNG project — told DeSmogBlog he believes Calvert County officials are working “in partnership with Dominion to the detriment of citizen transparency.”

“We’re unhappy that it does seem to protect Dominion's interest rather than the public interest,” Tutman said. “The secrecy surrounding this deal has made it virtually impossible for anyone exterior to those deals, like citizens, to evaluate whether these are good transactions or bad transactions on their behalf.”

As another sweltering summer day over 100 degrees came to a close in the Washington, D.C. region, citizens of nearby Alexandria, Virginia witnessed the closure of the Potomac River Generating Station (PRGS) coal-fired power plant also known as the 'Mirant Plant.'

The closure was expected by the community – as much as anything can be that you fight for – but it didn’t happen overnight. It began in 2003 with citizen-activists Elizabeth Chimento and Poul Hertzel’s quest to learn the source of black soot-like residue coating the windowsills of homes and businesses in Alexandria’s Old Town neighborhood.

Chimento and Hertzel’s first step involved pressuring city officials to clean up the power plant. Efforts in this direction continued for several years until a Mirant Community Monitoring Group (MCMG) of citizen activists, civic groups, and City officials formed and began working alongside environmental groups to hold the plant’s owner and environmental agencies accountable for the power plant’s pollution.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.